RockLobster

Per the OP - "David Taylor at WTT. Good or bad?" Not good, not bad... It's freaking awesome. We'll be witnessing what could possibly become the stuff of legend.

I like the way you think.

The crux of this entire thread. Hill says he didn't do anything. Except clearly he was not doing what he should have done. This set up a course of events that shouldn't have happened. And - he has openly admitted this on TV multiple times. He has admitted over and over that he should have done better.

He was not complying with the order to exit the vehicle. He delayed as much as reasonably possible while talking on a cell phone. He was non-compliant for that duration. When the doors were opened, he put his leg out of the door. But made no effort to get out in any way. None. Watch the video again. He wasn't using his leg to stand up, he was using it as leverage to remain in the vehicle. (Ask any wrestler, without the leg as a point of support, it would have been easy for the police to pull him out.) One officer decided enough was enough, and yanked him out despite his non-compliance. That was not a easy task, this was a fit top NFL player... who then responded, in shock, "Damn..." Watch it again. It's not difficult to see. Hill was not voluntarily exiting the vehicle. He was trying his best to stay in the vehicle and delay.

Except you'd be changing the facts about what actually occurred. The seatbelt violation was reported as being observed prior to the stop.

Get over this one. A crime is committed when someone breaks the law. Those that do so are criminals. Try to use your lawyer schmawyer bullshit to try to misdirect the simple words of the english language into lawyer speak. Doesn't change a single thing when we aren't in court.

You don't know (neither do I.) Which is why I had posted that we can't comment on it... but it may have been more clear to have posted that "we can't intelligently comment on it." So, sure anyone can comment. Intelligence be damned. That is the bulk of the internet. But I prefer intelligent posting.

And again - NOPE - this isn't a discussion of law and legal codes of individual states. It isn't a lawyer's forum. This is an internet forum discussion, where we primarily speak English. How the officers operate with their 10-4's and 10-24's and Florida law codes are too deep in the weeds to reasonably expect us all to research and understand. We use common English language for forum discussion. Which is exactly how it should be. My attitude is sound. You're wrong here. Get over it.

I watched all of the videos multiple times. I did not see an officer kicking Hill. (I really expected that I would, but I simply didn't.) Identity. Meh, one officer says 'you know who he is, he's a star player for Miami' and that's it. Nobody else in the video appears to care one way or the other. Doesn't appear it was a factor either way. BUT if there is a part of any video that actually shows someone kicking Hill - please post (and note the event time.)

I had said Hill remained in the car and chose to delay as much as possible. This is in reference to the window up-and-down and clear unwillingness to comply with the officer's window requests. We're discussing two different time periods. From the moment they told him to get out, you are correct, it unfolded quite quickly.

Yes - by "all reports." My words. In reference to the many reports I've searched out and have read. Obviously I haven't read every possible report, neither have you. Don't go down that road.

I've watched at least a dozen videos. And none that I've seen has shown any of that discussion - and none has shown Hill being kicked while in handcuffs. If this is true. Then that would be a significant factor here.

Exactly the opposite. I'm using words specifically within the context of US English language. Which is the common denominator for most of us here. (I would imagine a similar discussion in a law forum would go much differently.) I'm not offended in any way. I'm disinterested in emotion in this discussion. Which is the only reason I felt comfortable engaging in the discussion. Without question, Hill made mistakes. Many that led to the ensuing events. There is no doubt the officers also made mistakes. Would the officers have made the mistakes without Hill's bad attitude and non-compliance? We'll never know. Certainly, cops carry guns and are allowed to shoot people in some situations - among other things. No doubt, that is a position of higher authority that carries more responsibility along with the additional power. And, yes, a higher standard is required here. But to claim that somehow a civilian can push the boundaries and yet argue they "did nothing wrong" is asinine.

I disagree with you strongly on some of these points: 1) Severity - agreed, not major. 2) Threat Hill took a threatening pose immediately by aggressively and repeatedly questioning the officer. This was a red flag that was of Hill's own doing. It was unacceptable behavior and set the stage for all that came after. Hill's reluctance to open his window, keep it open, and open it again after he closed it all posed a threat Weapons may or may have been part of the scenario, but the chaos at this point would have masked any. Agree with me or not, but at this point I believe the safe procedure would be to remove Hill from the vehicle. 3) Resistence - Hill attempted to remain in the car and delay as much as reasonably possible. It was over soon after.

Meh. Was he complying? That is certainly debatable. Force may have increased the chance of someone being hurt, but (IMO) decreased the chance of that someone being the police or the general public. These guys are just doing their job trying to make the general public safe. By all reports, Hill was making the general public less safe. That was on him.

As detailed above, the typical use of the words 'crime' and 'criminal' in our society both apply here. (If you think all internet forum posters need to learn legal code for 50 states in order to post without being chastised, you should think again.) I never support the use of excess force. The discussion here is focused on how Hill was not at all innocent and that he was responsible for much of the chaos that ensued. And, to be fair, no - I agree that it was not all his responsibility. Maybe more time, maybe more deep breaths, maybe more mutual respect from everyone involved. That would be better. You and I know it was Tyreek Hill and that he wasn't going to be shooting anyone. That's the lens we see this through. But the police officers didn't have that luxury.

I'm neither trying to make it any more or less significant than it was. Your story is interesting, but doesn't reflect what actually happened in this particular stop. At all. We could use less fiction in this discussion.

Before you continue to argue, read and pay attention. I've already made this point, but I'll make it again now that you're paying attention. Not complicated lawyer speak - just using a dictionary: Breaking the law is a crime. If you break the law you are committing a crime. A crime occurs when someone breaks the law by an overt act, omission, or neglect that can result in punishment. A person who has violated a law, or has breached a rule, is said to have committed a criminal offense. That being said, somehow in Florida code... breaking the law isn't necessarily a crime. Ummm... OK. Now here's the tricky part: Per the use of English language. Breaking the law is a crime. And those who commit crimes are criminals. Per Florida's code - it supersedes the English definitions in their state for their own specific legal purposes. Maybe the best way to put it is that (again) leave the legal jargon for the courts where it belongs. This thread is about the stop, not about a future court case.

I don't know either. Neither of us was there. We couldn't possibly comment on it either way without being there. Yet the police did see the seatbelt violation per their on-site visual record. These are things they are trained to see. Ditto for speed. Both you and I have no idea. But the officers on-site have been trained and have experience. Observations made may be weak, or they may be strong - those are the things that come out in court. You are still confusing the stop with some kind of semblance of a court case. Which this is not. Don't muddy this up. He was pulled over for speeding and not wearing a seatbelt per the officer's trained perception. That is a fact.

That's a very good question. Here's another one. Hill's speed at that time is best described as 'leisurely.' This isn't a situation to be toyed with. How much time should be given to an alleged criminal to comply with commands when his tinted windows, sketchy behavior, and non-compliant negative attitude keep him in a vehicle where he very well could have loaded handguns? I've got an answer - not very much time. "Leisurely" is far too slow. Accelerate the compliance. Get him out by force if necessary. Contain the situation so nobody gets hurt or killed. If it hurt Hill's feelings... life lesson there. If you choose to break laws, you might get your feelings hurt. That's best case.

This has nothing to do with "after the stop." This is during the heated exchange before any citation. You'll need to re-watch the video. Hill was putting his seatbelt on while the officer was asking him to put his window down (after he had already had it down and put it back up.) It is difficult to see this because of the tinted windows, but watch carefully. This is an important moment. It gives gravity to the reality that he might try to run and put the public at risk again. (As I've already posted above.)

He was pulled over because the officers observed him breaking two laws. Speeding and not wearing a seat belt. Because the trained officers observed him breaking laws, that makes him - by definition - committing crimes. And, because he was committing crimes, that makes him - by definition - a criminal. To be fair, even if he was observed by trained officers - until he's actually convicted by a court of law he is only an alleged criminal who committed alleged crimes. As I said, the part that resolves the "alleged" is left to the court to decide.

The reason(s) people are stopped often times don't match the ticket(s) they receive. It is your mistake to reason that they are equivalent. They are not. Argue what he was pulled over for or what he was ticketed for - as separate arguments.

I believe I have made a legitimate case to justify the use of force. .. but, one more thing. ionel, mspart, bigbrog, ohio elite... get off my side. I'm committed to honesty and truth, nothing at all like you turds.

"When people spend hours just to hear a politician speak in person" It adds weight to PT Barnum... "There is a sucker born every minute."